Politically factually Correct?

[ussinners]

While you might hate the dialogue, are the facts they're spouting true? This is political, but I'm hoping someone will know the answer. I think it's correct, but I could be fuzzy or out and out wrong.

Here it is:

QUINCY: I want a lawyer.

MARK: A lawyer? Why would an innocent man, who didn’t do anything need a lawyer. You have been yelling about not doing anything, right? (no response) Why would someone like that need a lawyer?

Quincy doesn’t respond.

Long beat.

MARK: Well, you see Quincy boy, any person in an armed conflict that can be properly detained under the laws and customs of war, can have a military tribunal trial.

QUINCY: What? I… I…

MARK: But, Bush had the balls to change the law to add in scum sucking mother fuckers like yourself who don’t wear a uniform. But, conspire against the United States of America to be held as Enemy Combatants.

QUINCY: I don’t understand.

JOANNE: You’re not entitled to a lawyer. You’re not entitled to a trial under United States federal law.

MARK: You’re not being held with the rights of a United States citizen. No twelve jurors. No quick and speedy trial. As a matter of fact, your tribunal won’t begin till all hostilities against the United States have concluded. When you think that will be? (long beat) Exactly.

JOANNE: You can be held indefinitely.

QUINCY: Obama changed that… That’s gone…

MARK: No, no, no, no. He did away with the term. Enemy Combatant, ooh scary. Don’t want to frighten the bleeding heart liberals. To hell with God fearing Americans who just ask to be safe in their homes. But, the conditions don’t really change. Just a horse of a different color. See Obama wants to be everyone’s friend. Good will, peace on earth fucking shit. Bush had the guts to be a leader who didn’t give a shit what these third rate fucking countries thought of us. Bush knew how to get shit done.

Thanks: George

 

[Cracker Funk]

Word. Have you tried making phone calls? In college, I had a twenty-page essay to write, on a subject on which there is almost no literature. I had to rely almost entirely on interviews. It took a lot of phone calls, and tons of persistence, but I was able to secure some telephone interviews with some government officials that were fairly high up in their respective organizations.

Exposition is one of my biggest pet-peeves, but you're right -- sometimes it just has to be in there.

 

[Dreadylocks]

They are allowed to lie when seeking a confession. Such as "Your partner spilled the beans. He told us..." even though they don't even know who the partner is. That happens all the time. But THE LAW they can not lie about.

As for the Chicago case, I point to what I wrote "99% of the time". There are good and bad law enforcement officials. But, if you want to present something in a non-judgmental way, you have to present them in the best light. They can lie to the suspect about anything but the actual law. They have to protect his rights, so it doesn't come and bite them in the ass during trial.

All I'm saying is that it would not be untrue to life if an interrogator lied to a suspect.

I respectfully disagree with your statement that in order to present something in non-judgmental way, you must present it in the best light. That's just crazy, IMO. Choosing to show something in a good light is still casting judgment. I think you are mistaking non-judgment with unconditional positive regard. Not the same thing.

And it sounds like you answered you own original question and are familiar with the law. I'm no lawyer or police officer so don't listen to me.

 

[directorik]

I’m not a lawyer but I’m very interested in politics and as a
writer I’m pretty good at research.

Mark is a what? Lawyer? Cop? Fed?
Joanne is his partner? A lawyer? Cop? Fed?

I’m not going to comment at all on the writing, the character or
what is and is not acceptable in a play - not my place to critique
a fellow writers first draft based on 11 lines.

The reason I asked my first questions is because I don’t know who
the characters are. Mark makes several statements that are neither
politically, factually correct or politically, factually
incorrect, they seem like opinions. That caused confusion. And the
entire thread turning into a discussion about writing is confusing
me even more.

So let me understand: Are you asking if what Joanne is saying is
politically, factually correct? Are you asking if everything Mark
says is politically, factually correct? Are you asking if the line
“But, Bush had the balls to change the law to add in scum sucking
mother fuckers like yourself who don’t wear a uniform. But,
conspire against the United States of America to be held as Enemy
Combatants.” politically, factually correct or is it this mans
opinion?

 

[ussinners]

I’m not a lawyer but I’m very interested in politics and as a
writer I’m pretty good at research.

Mark is a what? Lawyer? Cop? Fed?
Joanne is his partner? A lawyer? Cop? Fed?

Joanne and Mark are CIA agents.
Quincy is a mid-thirties black man working as a Chemist at a Pharmacutical company. He's been implicated in a car-bombing in Times Square.

As for the FACTS I'm trying to find out:

Here's what I know: The term Enemy Combatant has pretty much been erased as a term in the Obama Admin. But there's still "unlawful combatant" and now ""unprivileged enemy belligerent"

Here's what I need to know if it is fact: A US citizen can be detained and imprisoned without counsel, if they are deemed to be associated with Al Quida or the Taliban. Especially if they are implicated in a known terrorist attack.

I've seen numerous articles, and wikipedia. I remember what I've seen and heard the pundits say, and it's different depending on whether it's a Democrat, Republican or Independent speaking.

But, if you have a way of finding out without too much trouble, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

All I'm saying is that it would not be untrue to life if an interrogator lied to a suspect.

I respectfully disagree with your statement that in order to present something in non-judgmental way, you must present it in the best light. That's just crazy, IMO. Choosing to show something in a good light is still casting judgment. I think you are mistaking non-judgment with unconditional positive regard. Not the same thing.

And it sounds like you answered you own original question and are familiar with the law. I'm no lawyer or police officer so don't listen to me.

Perhaps "Good Light" was not the best term (though I see nothing wrong with it). Being truthful is better. If you want to give all sides of a situation, you don't start with a lie. If someone does something questionable down the line and they start out with a lie, then pretty much they're wrong all the way around. But, if you start out truthful and end up doing something questionable, then it's up to the audience to decide whether it was worth it.

As for being judgmental, there's nothing even in the 11 lines I posted that's judgmental. I'm not casting light one way or another. I know plenty of people that would applaud Mark for his words, and others that would despise him for them.

Someone wrote about hating exposition: I bet I HATE exposition more then you. Every script I've ever read at Triggerstreet or Zoetrope is filled from page 1 to 120 with exposition.I spent more time on reviews about how exposition is to be used sparingly. Show us the story, don't tell us. Then I did regarding the actual plot. It's a novice's worst and most common error, yet 99.9% will defend their actions. I had someone once write me back with "How is the audience suppose to know the man is a lawyer if I don't have him say it?"